Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F7E1337B63 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 02:11:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38126-03 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:11:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33A51335B36 for ; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 02:11:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (static-71-179-240-8.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0McPxo-1P60Ul1X7I-00IFXg; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 07:11:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4CF5E6F1.2080103@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:10:57 -0500 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian CC: Marti Raudsepp , pgsql-docs Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix documentation about PL/Python exception handling References: <201011262350.oAQNoLK25416@momjian.us> In-Reply-To: <201011262350.oAQNoLK25416@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:tEZcSKlC0kEju+sYIgzsNhVShSKevfePriaug1OkdoR DBvAG1OhZLkS5NWHZKu3j7gEsUJdKMr6eaNF80kKAF7sIT6jb+ xR0tDZdPZaXj8/PWnjmjcDyLU+btSTeYQvInoTG9jDGM9eJIlV Ewc9X1h8dC9h70J8POlPbqauQqj9gECRSUYT+dSUyLXtL68yfr gdBgzyx280flKDqY3CYLeR/2FWlWEyu4OlOPpltkt0= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/1 X-Sequence-Number: 6237 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Added to TODO: > > /* PL/Python */ Add: |Improve behaviour of exception functions > and types > I updated that to also link to Marti's message with more details about the problem and potential solutions here, to speed up future archive trawling. At this point I think the only sensible thing is to mark the submitted documentation patch "Returned with feedback". Then we wait to see if someone gets motivated to provide the more invasive behavior fix that seems the preferred improvement here instead. Maybe there's an advance slimmed down docs patch that makes sense too, for briefly documenting the limitations without so much detail that the description turns into a backward compatibility requirement. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD